AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

delay in filing, without condonation. Consequently, these Appeals are considered collectively under this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, a lead Appeal has been filed against the Appellate Order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the ITA Nos. 2805 to 2808/Bang/2025 SA No. 29-32/Bang/2026 The Agriculture Produce marketing

M/S. EL MEASURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

condoned delay in filing of present appeal. 5.2 The only issue raised before us, is in respect of disallowance made under section 40(A)(ia) of the Act. It has been submitted that sum of Rs.10,64,075/- was paid exhibition charges to two nonresidents for event held outside India in South Africa and UAE. Ld.AR submitted that, payments were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. DR.RANJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Ranjan Pai, The Assistant Commissioner Block No. 1B, Jakkur Of Income Tax, Plantation Village, Vs. Central Circle – 2 (2), Yelahanka Main Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 064. Pan: Agbpp2795G Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 19/Bang/2019 (In Ita No. 891/Bang/2018) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit (Dr)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal and were not for delay in filing of CO. Moreover the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others as reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) was not considered by tribunal in any of these orders. . 5. The ld. DR in support

M/S. SWAMY VIVEKANANDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-3, , TUMKUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

permanent members. The Ld.AO thus denied the\nexemption claimed by assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act.\nThe Ld.AO further examined the provisions of 80P(2)(d) in respect\nof the interest received by the society on deposits with\ncommercial banks and co-operative banks. The Ld.AO after\nconsidering various submissions of the assessee, relied on the\ndecision

M/S. SWAMY VIVEKANANDA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 , TUMKUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

permanent members. The Ld.AO thus denied the\nexemption claimed by assessee u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act.\nThe Ld.AO further examined the provisions of 80P(2)(d) in respect\nof the interest received by the society on deposits with\ncommercial banks and co-operative banks. The Ld.AO after\nconsidering various submissions of the assessee, relied on the\ndecision

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. As far as merits of the appeal is concerned, the facts are that the assessee who is a dealer in sale of bakery and confectionary products, filed his return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.9.09 declaring an income of Rs.29,07,340. In the course of assessment proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee was issued with notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. The assessment was completed after making an addition of ITA Nos.914 and 922/Bang/2024 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1) BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU vs. SHRI BOMMAI SOMMAPPA BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed, as not pressed

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay in filing these appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee was issued with notice under section 148 of the Act for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. The assessment was completed after making an addition of ITA Nos.914 and 922/Bang/2024 Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGLAURU, BENGALURU vs. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned in filing the appeals and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. After admitting the appeals, we are of the opinion that the similar issue came for consideration in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.194/Bang/2023 for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 25.5.2023 held as under: 13. We have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT. LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay is condoned in filing the appeals and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. After admitting the appeals, we are of the opinion that the similar issue came for consideration in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.194/Bang/2023 for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 25.5.2023 held as under: 13. We have

M/S RAJEET SAHU ,RAJASTHAN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Ranjeet Sahu, The Assistant C/O. M/S. Hotel Raj Mahal, Commissioner Of Jodhpur Road, Vs. Income-Tax, Beawar – 305 901. Circle – 3 (2) (1), Rajasthan. Bangalore. Pan: Brhps7254P Appellant Respondent

permanently shifted to Beawar and is presently staying there only. It is further submitted that because of this, the appeal papers drafted by the counsel were sent to the assessee by courier for his signature and the signed appeal was received by the counsel through courier on 25.05.2017. The appeal was filed on the same date before the Tribunal

SHRI MALLIKARJUNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOTUMUCHAGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-1, HUBLI, HUBBALLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condone the delay of said 49 days in ITA No. 2481/Bang/2024 and 69 days in ITA No. 46/Bang/2025. 5. Now we are proceeding to take up the main appeals. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and got their provisional registration on 02/01/2024. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for granting

SHRI MALLIKARJUNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOTUMUCHAGI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condone the delay of said 49 days in ITA No. 2481/Bang/2024 and 69 days in ITA No. 46/Bang/2025. 5. Now we are proceeding to take up the main appeals. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and got their provisional registration on 02/01/2024. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for granting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay in condoned. Assessment Year 2012-13: 2. At the very outset of the matter, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ground challenging the reopening of assessment under section 148 though raised by the assessee in each year are not pressed. Hence this particular ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The cross objections

SRI. K. SHANKAR NAIK,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am I.T.A. No.454/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri K Shankar Naik, Vs. The Ito Ward-3, Davanagare 873-7-23, Jayanagar, C Block, Nituvalli, Davanagare. [Pan:Cnzps 2435M]

condone the delay of 51 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.454 /Bang/2020 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is whether the income declared by the assessee is derived from agriculture activity or not, as the treatment given by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources and bring it to tax. 2.1 The first ground